IMGoph comments: “i’m honestly a little intrigued about your “sources”. are people in the councilmember’s office giving you information that the rest of the citzenry is not privy to? if so, does that make you feel a little uneasy knowing that the democratically elected members of our government could be withholding information from some of their constituents and giving it to others?

if you get “inside” info, doesn’t that mean that developers bidding on projects might be getting inside info as well? care to comment?”

Dear IMGoph,

I readily admit I am no Woodward nor Bernstein. I am actually a Silverman. But that’s neither here nor there. My “sources” come from everywhere. Ed. note: I’m not quite sure why everyone puts sources in quotes I promise my sources are not figments of my imagination. A source is simply one who gives information. Why do they give this information? I’m sure it is for a variety of reasons. Some are whistle blowers. Some hope to advance their own agenda. Some are simply friends. Sources are actually quite common in this country. Believe me, I find it as hard to believe as you do but PoP has actually become a bit popular in our nation’s capital and if folks want to give me information I’m not going to deny them that. It doesn’t make me uneasy in the slightest. I don’t think getting “inside information” can be extrapolated to mean that “developers bidding on projects might be getting inside info as well”. For the record I also don’t think my sources have any correlation to the advancement of big oil nor the demise of the US auto industry.

Sincerly,

PoP

So what do you guys think about sources? Are the use of sources sketchy or legit? Previous ombudsman responses can be read here, here and here.